The Watchman On The Wall

Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Verse 13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

Monday, March 21, 2016

How Evil Neocons Infiltrated The Republican Party

Friends, this is a long article but a vitally important read to understand where we are today.

Boyd Cathey wrote this article on why he supports
Donald Trump.

Recently, I was asked by a friend who likes Ted
Cruz, why I support Donald Trump and not the Texas senator among the Republican
candidates running for president. In partial response to that question, let me
set down briefly my thoughts.

I
think it is important to begin with a review of some essential history, a brief
exploration of the evolution of what is now called “Movement Conservatism” and
its symbiotic relationship to the modern Republican Party. Understanding this
background is critical to comprehending what has happened and is happening,
politically and culturally, to what remains of the American republic in 2016.
The transformation of the intellectual brain trust for the Republican Party has
fundamentally affected and influenced the successive evolution of the positions
the Republican Party has taken over the past fifty years.

Before discussing this history, I think
it is necessary that we recall that the GOP Establishment, in fact,nevergave up its virtual control of the
party structure, despite Ronald Reagan.
And since Reagan’s departure it has controlled the party apparatus completely
and uninterruptedly. Even under President Reagan, as a dear friend who worked in the White House in 1981
once remarked to me: “Reagan let the Bush establishment people control
appointments, and their strategy was ‘Let Reagan speak like Reagan, but we will
control appointments and policy’. And basically that is what happened.”

It
was my mentor and friend, the late Dr. Russell Kirk, whose volumeThe Conservative Mindactuallyinitiatedwhat
became the older, scholarly “conservatism” in the 1950s. “Conservatism,” as
Kirk explained it, encompassed an inherent distrust of liberal democracy,
staunch opposition to egalitarianism, and an extreme reluctance to commit the
United States to global “crusades” to impose American “values” on
“unenlightened” countries around the world. Conservatives should celebrate
local traditions, customs, and the inherited legacies of other peoples, and not
attempt to destroy them. America, Kirk insisted, was not founded on a
democratic, hegemonic ideology, but as an expression and continuation of
European traditions and strong localist, familial and religious belief. Indeed,
Kirk authored a profound biography of Senator Robert Taft, “Mr. Conservative,” (of
Cincinnati) who embodied those principles.

Beginning in the 1970s into the 1980s
there was an influx of former Leftist and ex-Trotskyite intellectuals and
writers, who had become anti-Communists and who began to move to the right into
the older conservative movement. These were denominated the Neoconservatives,
or Neocons. At first the Neocons were welcomed as ex-Marxists “coming in from
the cold.” The problem was, and still is, that the Neocons brought with them
not only their welcomed and spirited anti-Communism, but also their
intellectual template of across-the-board egalitarianism, internationalism, and
ana prioriliberal and global interventionist
foreign policy, which has, as its underlying principle, an almost chiliastic
belief in imposed “liberal democracy” as the “final stage” of human (and
secular) progress. And it is that Idea of (irreversible) Progress, which means
the destruction of older traditions, customs, and those things considered
“reactionary” that stand in the way of Progress, that characterizes most of
Neocon thinking. Such ideas, needless to say, run counter to traditional
conservative principles.

With strong academic connections and
financial sources, the Neocons soon took control of most of the older
conservative foundations, think tanks, and publications, and they did so with
an iron hand, reminiscent of older days, when their Marxism was readily
visible.
And, more significantly, through this control of most “conservative”
institutions, especially those centered in Washington, D. C., they very soon
began to provide experts and advisors to the national Republican Party and its
candidates. Their dominance manifested itself in organs such as the Ethics and
Public Policy Center, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and in publications
likeCommentary,The Public Interest,
andNational Review(which shed its previous attachments
to the older conservatism). The advent of the Rupert Murdoch media empire, with
Fox News television,The Wall Street Journal,The Weekly Standard,
and theNew York Postas its notable voices, cemented this
influence, which manifested itself abundantly in post-Reagan GOP policies and
prescriptions.

With
the triumph of the Neocons, conservatism soon no longer resembled what it once
was. The principles which so characterized the Old Right were replaced with an
ideological zeal for the very opposite of those principles. Older conservative
icons such as John Randolph and John C. Calhoun, included prominently in Kirk’s
pantheon of great conservatives, were, due to their opposition to
egalitarianism, expelled from the Neoconservative lexicon, to be replaced by
Abraham Lincoln, and later figures such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King. (And
Southerners like Sam Ervin, Harry Byrd Sr., Robert E. Lee, Wade Hampton, etc.,
were now uniformly condemned and rejected by the new “mainstream
conservatives.”)

Lincoln,
who was not included in Kirk’s pantheon, became the new and real “Founder” of
the American republic, as the editor of the post-William BuckleyNational Review,
Rich Lowry, contends. The civil rights revolution of the 1950s and 1960s, with
its far-reaching and radical court decisions, was pronounced to be
“conservative,” and, at the same time, Southern conservatives, such as the
brilliant Mel Bradford, and anti-egalitarians, such as Dr. Samuel Francis, were
purged out of the “movement.” Scholars such as Bradford, Joseph Sobran, and the
internationally-recognized political scientist/historian, Paul Gottfried, had
their careers attacked, were denied well-deserved professional positions, and
were banished from formerly conservative publications and access to the
largesse of formerly conservative foundations.

Libertarians,
too, were shown the door. Never a good fit within the older conservative
movement of the 1960s, their exit began long before the triumph of
Neoconservatism, with prominent advocates associating at such foundations as
the Ludwig von Mises Institute or congregating in certain college economics
departments, writing via sites such as LewRockwell.com, and publishing
scholarly works by the Liberty Fund. Politically, their most significant leader
in recent years has been Ron Paul, but his prescriptions and views were
dismissed just as firmly as were those of the Old Right, or paleoconservatives,
as they were sometimes called.

No
one was allowed to violate the new orthodoxy without severe consequences. But
more revolutionary, the logic of Neoconservative egalitarianism, when carried
out to its fullest extent, has meant that very many of those now-termed Mainstream
Conservatives presently endorse, either openly (e.g., Jonah Goldberg, theNational Reviewmagazine, etc.), or tacitly (e.g.
George Will, Charles Krauthammer at Fox, and a majority of national mainstream
conservative “opinion leaders”), such aberrations as same sex marriage and
feminism, and various absurdities under the rubric of civil rights. And at the
same time they push zealously for “regime change” internationally everywhere
(which also means eventual control by Wall Street). This has meant American
misadventures in Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, and elsewhere.

Thus,
in a very real sense, what is commonly termed “conservatism” today has not been
truly conservative in the traditional sense for probably three or four decades,
at least. Indeed, political scientists and historians such as Gottfried, Claes
Ryn (at Catholic Univ), Gary Dorrien (in his study,The Neoconservative Mind),
and others have examined this transition in some detail.

Turning
to current Republican politics, for the first time since 1992 and the Pat
Buchanan campaign, there is actual opposition, if a bit amorphous, this year to
the reigning Neoconservative template that has dominated Republican policy
thinking. The campaign rhetoric and views of Donald Trump, I would suggest, represent
a potential break with the regnant Neoconservative orthodoxy. Perhaps more
importantly, none of the GOP candidates, save Trump, is really capable of
challenging the Neoconservative template, and this is precisely why most of the
GOP and Neocon elites despise him so much. Thus, while the Neocon and GOP
Establishment heartily dislike Ted Cruz, they actually fear and loathe Trump.
Trump, is not a “movement conservative,” that is, he is not a Republican
candidate schooled in the narrative of Neoconservatism (while Marco Rubio
wallows in it). In the current political context, the term “conservative” is
used so cavalierly that every GOP candidate now claims the mantel: Jeb, Kasich,
Christie, Rubio, and so on: all claim to be “movement (or mainstream) conservatives.”

Trump
is the candidate who has been bold and farsighted enough to raise the real
issues that are affecting every day Americans, not just “movement
conservatives.” Most importantly, there is the supremely significant issue of
illegal immigration. Consider, for example, what has happened to California,
that up to the 1980s was considered a reliably “conservative” state, but after
the 1986 Immigration Act, and three-to-four million new immigrants from Latin
America, most illegal, will no longer ever vote for a Republican, much less any
kind of conservative. The question is: do we want this to continue to happen?
Who will be the candidate who will actually stop—and reverse—this?

Then,
there is the issue of Muslims coming to America. Trump’s plan to temporarily
bar them coming in until a proper and secure screening system is put into
place, is not only logical, it is completely constitutional and legal. Various
legal experts and historical and judicial precedents confirm Trump’s proposal;
indeed, Professor Jan Ting has mined the archives to discover ample support for
Trump’s pledge, including rulings by the Supreme Court, the Immigration and
Citizenship Act of 1952 (U.S.C. Title 8, Section 1182), andactions by
Presidents Jimmy Carter, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and others;also, No
other candidate, including Ted Cruz, has advocated the same program, and
several have mindlessly attacked him for it. But does anyone doubt that Trump
would do it?

It
is Trump who, on the issue of militant Islam, inspires both the hatred and fear
of politically-correct multiculturalists, not just in this country, but around
the world. In Britain a petition has been pushed by the political Left to ban
Trump’s entry into the United Kingdom. Signed by more than a half-million
people and endorsed by the usual assortment of far left and communist
organizations, it has actually been debated in the English parliament (January
18, 2016). And although the Conservative Party Prime Minister David Cameron has
condemned Trump’s proposal as “divisive, stupid and wrong,”he has stopped short
of endorsing a ban of Trump’s entry; Ted Cruz has not been the
object of similar attacks. The internationalist politically-correct elites recognize
their primary foe.

And
the Leftist Hollywood elites are lining up against Trump. Notorious Vietcong
supporter Jane Fonda has organized a committee to“Stop hate dump
Trump.”Including such old school pro-communists as Harry Belafonte
and leftists like Jonathan Demme, the committee has boasted that it has 1,200
supporters, and has condemned Trump, declaring: “We are offering Americans a
chance to be heard and engage in action, as Trump’s campaign gains momentum
even as he increases his hateful and divisive rhetoric.”

The
case of Ted Cruz is mixed. He has on the Senate floor, opposed some of the
measures pushed by the GOP Establishment, and he is not a member of the
exclusive congressional “club,” but he is still part and parcel of the GOP/
Neocon “movement” fabric. The problem here is that the GOP ceased years ago to
be a true vehicle for traditional conservatism nationally. Rather, its
fundamental ideological praxis and its basic progressivism are shared by its
supposed enemies over on the Left. Accordingly, as we have seen in so many
practical applications, this leads only to continued surrender and the ongoing
slide of this country into the morass of inevitable politically-correct
progressivism, which most all of the GOP candidates buy into.

Certainly,
Ted Cruz is disliked by many of the elites, looked down on as a parvenu, but
the Establishment would, if very reluctantly, prefer him (holding their
collective noses, perhaps) to Trump, and the reason—if you read what they have
written, or listen to them on the air—is that they instinctively realize that
Trump would very likely re-shape the Republican Party and dislodge the corrupt,
establishmentarian Mainstream Conservatives/Neocons and GOP elites who have
enjoyed their rich sinecures and positions for so many years, all the while the
nation has continued to descend into what John Milton called “the slough of
Despond”—decay and corruption galore.

Trump
has continued to lead the Republican pack, even pad his lead in the polls.
Thus, one of the latest desperation tactics in this power politics game on the
part of a few members of the GOP Establishment was evident on Fox News’s
“Special Report with Bret Baier,” Thursday night, January 21, as panelists,
including Charles Krauthammer and Nina Easton ofFortunemagazine
whose utter contempt for Trump was so readily visible recently, now appear to
want to cozy up to the New York billionaire, and criticize Cruz. The immediate
hope was clearly to rattle some hard core, anti-Establishment Trump supporters,
cast some doubts, and peel them away over to Cruz, and thus strengthen the
second-place Cruz to the point that he could neutralize Trump’s strong lead. The
strategy here was simple: destroy your real enemy by appearing to embrace that
enemy. That way, a Marco Rubio, or perhaps a Chris Christie, or even Jeb or
Kasich, might slip through and become a real player. After all, these latter
four are their real candidates.

But
just as this strategy seemed to blossom, Rich Lowry’sNational Reviewassembled a group of twenty-two
Neocons/GOP Establishment writers to launch a massive, multi-focused, and
vicious attack on Trump and his lack of what they termed “conservative”
credentials, at least as they see it. Among the writers we find the usual
zealous globalist and egalitarian advocates, including Bill Kristol, John
Podhoretz (these two, sons of two of the ex-Marxist founders of
neoconservatism), Andrew McCarthy, Cal Thomas (the Neocon Evangelical), and the
George Soros-supported Southern Baptist Russell Moore. Each author penned a
short assault on Trump and his lack of “conservative” orthodoxy, reading him
out of “movement conservatism.” Moore summed up much of their charges,
condemning“Trump’s
vitriolic–and often racist and sexist–language about immigrants, women, the
disabled, and others…”(January
21, 2016). That such leftist-sounding language should appear in what was once
considered the premiere conservative magazine in the United States, should come
as no surprise. After all, under Lowry and his team atNational Reviewhas endorsed same
sex marriage as “conservative”and
no longer resembles the journal began by William F. Buckley. Clearly, the
strategy to stop Trump involves both attacks by some neocon thought-leaders on
his conservative bona fides, while others seem to accept his inevitability.
And, equally evident is that the real intended recipient of these double-edged
initiatives would be a Marco Rubio, or perhaps a Christie or even Jeb Bush.

In
some ways, their attempt to expel and silence Trump is reminiscent of earlier
efforts to ridtheirmovement of any elements that they
deemed undesirable or that dared suggest that Neocon dogma is the only
acceptable version. It is exactly what they did to members of the older
conservatism. They continue to fail miserably to understand Donald Trump’s
strong appeal, not just to those who think of themselves as grass roots
conservatives, but to a broader, more populist and nationalist cross-section of
Americans.

The
leaders of the neocon/mainstream conservative movement believe that even if
Cruz is dangerous and not “one of them,” the financial and political links they
have and would extend, would make him more amenable to their influence. That,
in itself, is a major fact that must be considered this year.

It
is true that recently Ted Cruz has sounded in his campaign much like the
non-conformist Trump, that is, he appears to have copied or taken some of the
issues that Trump has raised and attempted to make them his own. I applaud
this, but I also have some serious questions about his sincerity.

As
a movement conservative purist, Cruz could fit comfortably within the
Mainstream Conservative institutions as they already exist. Indeed, these
institutions are basically designed to handle naive “evangelical Christians”
that the Neocons actually despise. That Cruz represents this group, far from
threatening the Neocons, reassures them of a basic institutional compatibility
(despite their personal loathing for Cruz and general contempt for
evangelicals). It is less clear that the existing Mainstream Conservative
apparatus (think tanks, publications, institutes, etc.) would so smoothly
accommodate a Trump presidency. It would require a far more significant
alteration than a Cruz presidency, and pose more of a threat to the entrenched
power and interests behind these institutions.

A
fascinating case of this Establishment “choosing the lesser evil” occurred on
Thursday, January 14, at the Republican presidential debate in North
Charleston, South Carolina. It was reportedby Rush Limbaugh on
his radio programon January
15:

“I
have an incredible story here last night — and, by the way, just to give you a
little bit of inside data, if you watched the debate last night, did you hear a
lot of boos for Trump? Did you wonder about that? Well, you knew where it was
coming? Where was it coming from? (…) It might have been the Bush camp, but
I’ll tell you where the boo-birds were coming from. They were coming from North
Carolina. The North Carolina state GOP bused a bunch of people down there and
their express purpose was to try to show that there is no massive support for
Trump. They wanted to do some damage.They are grudgingly accepting
Ted Cruz now. But can you go back just maybe three, four weeks? How many of you
remember the Republican establishment embracing Ted Cruz, promoting Ted Cruz,
thinking Ted Cruz would be the solution? I mean, it didn’t happen, did it? But
it has worked out that way.” (emphasis added)

“STEPHANOPOULOS:
But so let me put that question to you. As I said, you did work for President
George W. Bush. As you talk to your colleagues, your former colleagues, people
in the top of the Republican Party, if they’re forced to choose between Trump
and Cruz, who do they choose? FAGEN: Well, I think they would, I think, support
Ted.”

And
who can forget South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley’s personal attack on Trump
for his “divisive” politics and the need to resist the “siren call of the
angriest voters” as central to the Republican “response” to President Obama’s
State of the Union address? Haley spoke for the GOP/Neocon Establishment in
singling Trump out for specific criticism. As a revealing essay published byThe Hilldetails, “Trump has been at the center
of the storm.” [http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/265835-gop-front-runners-defy-autopsy-of-party-defeats]Haleywas selected for her role by Speaker
Paul Ryan and Senator Mitch McConnell, and no doubt her remarks were vetted by
them and their staffs prior to their delivery. Despite their disdain for Cruz,
the real enemy of the Establishment is Donald Trump.

I
am aware of Trump’s history, his checkered past, his divorces. But the fact
remains, Trump is the only candidate who is not actually controlled by a lobby
or pressure group. His campaign is self-financed. Indeed, he knows, in many
cases personally, many of the major money-bags, hedge fund magnates, and heads
of those pressure groups, and he publicly rejects their contributions…and their
direction and advice. For me, this is an extremely important development and a
signal issue in 2016. I think a large group—millions—of Americans really do
want someone who is not beholden to such Super PACs, pressure groups, and
lobbies. Trump is, in fact, the only such candidate who comes close to that
qualification this year.

Cruz
has raised the issue of “New York values” and implied that Trump is tricking
voters and that he actually espouses liberal views, citing an interview given
back in 1999. Ted Cruz’s campaign has launched a series of TV ads in Iowa of
accusing Trump of being, in fact, a “liberal Democrat,” and, for proof,
dredging up an interview that the Donald gave back seventeen years ago, in
which he expressed views which would certainly be anathema to any
traditionalist conservative. But that’s the point, isn’t it?Seventeenyears
ago? How many of us have not changed, at least to some degree, our views on
various topics in seventeen years? Remember Ronald Reagan? For most of his life
he was a New Deal-Roosevelt Democrat, but by 1968 he had altered his
philosophy. Conversions are, indeed, possible, and, in fact, the Christian
faith not only lauds them, but teaches that they happen all the time. Indeed,
if “the abortion doctor,” Bernard Nathanson—a co-founder of NARAL–can come full
circle on the right-to-life, cannot Donald Trump? And if (former) Democrat loyalist
Ronald Reagan can become standard bearer for conservatives, why deny the
possibility of conversion to the Donald?

In
reality, both Trump and Ted Cruz state their opposition to “liberal” New York
values, and both say as much on the campaign trail. Trump has been very open
about his change of heart, his conversion. He admits that his life is an open
book, that he now disavows some things he previously believed, while Cruz
offers himself as a true-blue, consistent champion of grass roots conservatism.
But is that narrative completely valid?

Let’s
take a closer look at Cruz’s effort to grasp the mantle of Christian
knight-errant, unstained by “New York values.” The fact is that Cruz depends on
some heavy-hitting Wall Street donors, who will assuredly gain open access
should he be elected. Can he, then, be truly independent of their wishes and
eventual demands should he enter the Oval Office? Also very worrying is whether
domestic lobbies such as the Chamber of Commerce, foreign policy lobbies
connected to the Middle East, or other powerful interests, will exert their
pound of flesh should he reach the White House. He has, for instance, heavily
courted the Las Vegas gambling kingpin and zealous Zionist, billionaire Sheldon
Adelson. Cruz’s wife, Heidi, is a high-powered Wall Street investment banker, a
manager with Goldman Sachs, and Cruz has strong on-going financial connections
with Wall Street, as well. His Super PACs have received substantial political
contributions from Wall Street and Establishment elites, including $11 million
from hedge-fund kingpin, Robert Mercer. [See detailed expose’ by Francis S.
Sellers inThe Washington Post,
Oct. 6, 2015,How
a reclusive computer programmer became a GOP money powerhouse].
And he continues to mine the New York financial elite for financial support.His top financial
donors between 2011 and 2016include
Goldman Sachs, Woodforest National Bank, and Morgan Lewis LLP. Indeed, he
received in direct contributions $2.5 million from corporate oil, gas, and
investment and security interests.

Not
only that, but recall that Ted Cruz has emphasized his opposition to such
targets as same sex marriage and “the gay rights lobby.” YetThe
New York Post[by
Robert George, Jan. 18, 2016] and other sources have reported that he has
solicited large campaign contributions from prominent gay figures who form and
shape precisely those “New York values” he so resolutely condemns and rails
against in his campaign. Indeed, he promised prominent gay New Yorkers that, if
elected president, he wouldnotpush opposition to same sex marriage. [Ted
Cruz Is Guest of Two Gay Businessmen, by Maggie Haberman,New York Times,April 23, 2015] Does not Cruz’s present
line of attack strike us as a bit hypocritical? Does it not remind us of those
garden-variety politicians who solemnly promise one thing to a Tea Party
audience, but then assure more socially liberal big donors “don’t worry, it
ain’t gonna happen.”

Thus,
I submit, Cruz’s attack is bogus and, in some ways, dishonest. Trump has
steadfastly affirmed a Rightist agenda, on gun rights, on right-to-life (and
defunding Planned Parenthood), on same sex marriage, on illegal immigration
(and ending birthright citizenship for illegals), on repealing Obamacare, on
halting unfair trade/giveaway deals with China (and other countries), on
halting Muslim immigration until we fix our broken immigration system, on
talking man-to-man to President Putin and finding a real solution to problems
in the Middle East, and much more. In so doing he goes beyond the accustomed
narrative of “mainstream conservatism.” He has connected with millions of
formerly tuned-out voters and new voters with a more populist and nationalist
vision, and any true conservative renaissance desperately needs that if things
are to begin to turn around, and if the smelly Augean stables of the GOP
“Mainstream Conservative” Establishment can be cleaned out.

Certainly,
on a personal level Trump was not the candidate to whom I was at first
attracted. Yes, he supported Democrats in the past, indeed, he contributed to
some of them. But, hewaspart of that culture back then, and he
was playing, necessarily,theirgame and bytheirrules. And it is preciselythatknowledge of who those folks are and
how they operate, what they have done to this country, and how they play the
influence and power game, that gives him much better insight and a real sense
of whatmustbe radically undone if any part of
this country be salvaged.

The
essential question for me is this: as much as I might respect Ted Cruz’s senate
career, I sincerely don’t think he would be able to withstand or take on the
powerful Establishment in the same no-holds-barred and independent manner as
the Donald. I don’t think Cruz would dislodge the Neocon intellectual
stranglehold over the GOP policy; I think he would end up accepting and
confirming it.

Other
objections to Trump imply that he is ignorant, or doesn’t know what he’s doing,
or lacks the good graces to be president. Simply put, any man who has created
business enterprises in dozens of countries worth tens of billions of dollars,
who has created thousands of good paying jobs (with only four chapter 11
bankruptcy re-organizations for his many operations over thirty years) has got
to have some intelligence and savvy. Yes, he gained degrees at the Wharton
School and an Ivy League education.

Electability?
Increasingly, both the polls and the frantic reaction of the Hillary campaign
indicate that, like with the GOP Establishment, Trump is the candidate they
fear the most.

What
is needed in this nation now is dramatic, even radical change. What is needed
is not someone who will simply raise Hell, but someone who will be more like a
bull loosed in a terrified china shop. Half measures and regular politicians,
“mainstream conservatives” like Ted Cruz, I don’t think can pull it off. Trump,
I believe, just maybe can.

I
certainly realize that various folks will differ in their appraisals, for
various reasons. A goodly number don’t like Trump’s history or hispersona(or his, at times, salty language).
Others think Cruz is a better “conservative” or a more sincere “Christian,” but
I would posit that the old conservative movement that we grew up with has
basically become nugatory, run aground and corrupt. Present day “Mainstream
Conservatism” reminds me more of a Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner, transforming itself
into something that upends what was once its essential nature.

And,
lastly, regarding support for a straight-down Christian: lest we forget, God
may use any vessel, even an imperfect one, should He choose to effect change.
Don Juan of Austria, who vanquished the Muslims at Lepanto and saved Europe
from Islamic invasion for one-hundred years, wasnota saint, but who would not say that he
served God’s purpose as champion of Christendom in forcing back the massive
Islamic wave of 1571?

So,
I repeat: what we need this year, a year critical to the very fragile existence
of what is left of the republic, are drastic measures by someone who istrulyoutside the tweedle-dee/tweedle-dum
kleptocratic duopoly that has dominated American political discourse for
decades.

Someone
recently compared Ted Cruz to Ronald Reagan. This year we don’t need another
Reagan. No; the times are far worse today. We need a Reagan with fangs.